Official April 20 2005 thread

The"official" threads posted during the trial

Moderator: Global Moderator

sistahlamb
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:00 pm

Official April 20 2005 thread

Post by sistahlamb » Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:25 pm

OK I just found something on that Brian Barron guy who is testiftying today.

BRIAN BARRON

Of the 16 law enforcement officers to testify before the Jackson grand jury, 15 were part of the Santa Barbara investigative team targeting the pop star. But Brian Barron (pictured at left) surely had the most intimate knowledge of Neverland Ranch. That's because Barron, a patrol officer and K-9 handler with the nearby Guadalupe Police Department, has worked as a part-time security guard at the estate since 1997, when he was a police academy trainee.

After providing an overview of the property's security setup during his April 2004 testimony, Barron was asked by prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss about a directive posted in the Neverland security office in early-2003. Barron testified that a message on a whiteboard notified guards that "[the accuser] is not allowed off property." Asked if that was the first time a Neverland guest "was not allowed to leave," Barron answered, "Yes." He added that, during the week or so that the directive was posted, had the child tried to leave the property, "we would not have opened the gate" without first getting permission from a security supervisor or the ranch manager.

Barron, who testified that he never saw Jackson act inappropriately with young boys, was not asked whether he ever questioned the directive (though as a cop he might have been expected to wonder what right Neverland brass had to issue such a detention order).

Aaliyah
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:00 pm

Official April 20 2005 thread

Post by Aaliyah » Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:27 pm

Image

Image

Image

Aaliyah
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:00 pm

Official April 20 2005 thread

Post by Aaliyah » Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:32 pm

Image

Aaliyah
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:00 pm

Official April 20 2005 thread

Post by Aaliyah » Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:39 pm

Image

~Vicky~

Official April 20 2005 thread

Post by ~Vicky~ » Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:58 pm

Ok, the accuser was how old? Why would they just let him off the property by himself? Was it just Gavin or the whole family?

Pokey
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:00 pm

Official April 20 2005 thread

Post by Pokey » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:01 pm

From MJNO
Originally Posted by ENTERT8NER
Well here is the official explanation...

Defense brought up the point that it was Neverland's policy not to let children leave the premise unless they are with their parents. Barron agreed that normally that is the policy.

There goes that witness...

Tiger Lilly
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 3134
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 1:00 pm

Official April 20 2005 thread

Post by Tiger Lilly » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:01 pm

Maybe Neverland doesn't usually have such wreckless, naughty little boys on the property. Gavin's got a reputation for misbehaving himself and having an attitude problem. Like Vicky said, why would they let him out? There was already a suspicious-eye on this family because they ran riot in Neverland. maybe they wanted to make sure he didn't go out alone. :careless

Aaliyah
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:00 pm

Official April 20 2005 thread

Post by Aaliyah » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:02 pm

the note was just for Gavin, he was 13

~Vicky~

Official April 20 2005 thread

Post by ~Vicky~ » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:06 pm

Yeah, so bringing up that fact makes no sense. Neverland is situated far away from anything..so if he wondered off...that would be on THEM at Neverland if they couldn't find him.

Aaliyah
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:00 pm

Official April 20 2005 thread

Post by Aaliyah » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:19 pm

TSColdMan
Sanger did a very good job cross-examining about these various books and magazines discussed yesterday. I haven't read through it all, but here is a little snippet:

Q: Okay. These magazines are, I think you said, from 1931; is that correct?

A: They're from different years; 1935, '37, that era.

Q: That's true, actually. These are from 1935. And the title of the publication is "The Nudist"; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: These appear to be collector's items, do they not?

A: They could be.

Q: Do you have any information as to whether or not Mr. Jackson ever saw these nudist magazines?

A: I don't have any information that he did or did not see them.

Q: Now, in the part of Mr. Jackson's house that you searched, do you know how many books were there in total?

A: No, I do not.

Q: Were there thousands?

A: There were many books.

Q: Okay. At least houdreds?

A: Yes.

...

Q: All right. And you said that as far as you know, there's nothing illegal about an adult possessing that book in the United States, or in California, let's say?

A: Yes.

Q: The United States in general, okay. Were you aware that that particular author, that photographer, was prosecuted and acquitted during the Nazi regime prior to World War II for those very photographs?

Objection Sustained

Q: As you look at that, that appears to be a historic book, a book of recording historic photographs; is that correct?

A: I don't know what you mean by that.

Q: All right. Did you research as to any of the authors of any of these books?

A: No.

Q: All right. So in other words, the day you were there, your job was to look at things and see if they appeared to be within the search warrant and you seized them?

A: Yes.

...

Q: Okay. But you didn't flip through every single book in that room?

A: No.

Q: All right. So first of all, you'd look at something that looked like it might be a book that had something to do with sex. Is that pretty much what you were looking for?

A: Yes.



Mack Dogg
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:19 am

Official April 20 2005 thread

Post by Mack Dogg » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Originally posted by sistahlamb
MJJBunny MJJForum

Someone named Brian Barron on the stand today. He is the witness who saw the instructions to not allow Gavin to leave the property.


Tomorrow a very long list of motions.
It includes a motion to allow a battered woman's expert testify.
Also includes a defense motion to allow in prior sexual behavior of accuser.


The Defense case will be including:


450 witness on list

20 to 24 Neverland employees to say they never saw anything. Motion to determine whether it's relevant

Neverland empoyees re: Bad behavior re: accuser and brother


Does anybody know anything about that Brian Barron guy?? I haven't heard anything about him.
What a minute... Gavin had prior sexual acts?? F*ck that, let that in. It wouldn't be fair to Mike with that 1108 crap that went into this case!!
Image

~Vicky~

Official April 20 2005 thread

Post by ~Vicky~ » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:30 pm


Mack Dogg
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:19 am

Official April 20 2005 thread

Post by Mack Dogg » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:33 pm

Good!! **** JACK GORDON!!!!!!
Image

Tiger Lilly
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 3134
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 1:00 pm

Official April 20 2005 thread

Post by Tiger Lilly » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:42 pm

I know it's not nice to say when a person died but that man was awful!

Thanks for the info Vicky!

sistahlamb
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:00 pm

Official April 20 2005 thread

Post by sistahlamb » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:42 pm

What the hell does that assh**e have anything to do with the trial??
Can we stay on topic please?

Anyway, who else is supposed to testify today besides Brian Barron??

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests